Senate Standing Committee on Emergency Management

The Senate Emergency Management Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. If members of the committee can start to make their their way to Room 2200, we're gonna try to establish a quorum. Although, I think for right now, so that the author can present, we're gonna start as a subcommittee. I wanna welcome everyone to the very first of of this, convening of this Senate committee.

It's an august occasion. A couple important bills, but I do wanna thank the staff for joining us here and stepping up and really making it happen here with this committee. So Cassian Mary, our consultant and our committee assistant, we really appreciate you making this happen. Thanks to the Pro Tem for establishing this incredibly important committee. So three bills on the agenda.

One is proposed for consent and one was pulled 1020 Nilo was pulled from this hearing for a future hearing. But mister Archuleta, would you like to take a shot at the first presentation here? And once we establish Cuomo, we'll do some committee rules and things like that. But Senator?

Thank you, mister chair, and good afternoon, committee members. Today I'm presenting, senate bill 1001, which would require the California governor's office of emergency service to issue identification cards to essential utility workers, granting those workers easier access to evacuation zones during an emergency. In many emergency situations, public works infrastructure is damaged or cut off. In those cases, utility workers access is essential to maintaining or restoring systems like electricity, gas, or water services.

Unfortunately, our current emergency response system does not make it easy for those essential workers to gain the access they need to do their jobs.

Without universally recognizable authorization system, lines of communication between parties can fail, leading to hours, maybe even days, and delays of complete denial of access. Just one example for the need for senate bill one zero zero one comes from the twenty twenty five Eaton fire. And and in its immediate aftermath, employees of the Roland Water District in response to a mutual aid request from Rubio Canyon Land and Water Association sought to assist with turning off water services at the burned down structures.

Roland Water District employees were in uniform, drove to the scene in marked vehicles, and presented their letter from Rubio Canyon request assisting to the law enforcement check. At that point, they were not given access.

Despite this, they were denied several times and could not contribute to the effort. By mirroring existing access laws and safety protections for journalists and our agriculture workers, Senate Bill 1001 takes a common sense approach that puts safety and emergency responses first. In emergencies, rapid response is a matter of life or death. Senate bill 1001 establishes a system that will facilitate essential work behind the lines of evacuation zones.

We cannot wait for the next disaster before passing common sense laws like this one.

Standardizing access to emergency areas will allow essential workers across the state to maintain the infrastructure and assist in disaster response hours earlier than currently exist today. With me to present Senate Bill 1001 and answer any questions are Tom Coleman, the general manager of Roland Water District, and, Adrienne Betti, the chief executive officer of the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurances Authority. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote and your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. The support witnesses, two minutes each. Thank you. Yeah. You just pause for me for one second while we establish a quorum here just just in case.

Do you wanna acknowledge that, please?

Is that okay? Just pardon the indulgence here. So committee assistan, please call the roll.

Oh, who the five members are? Nope. The votes. Oh, I I thought we had Alright. So committee assistant, please call the roll.

Senator Stern?

Here.

Stern, here. Seyarto?

Seyarto here. Allen? Ashby? Blakespear? Dahle?

Here.

Here.

Dahle here. Grayson?

Rubio here.

Present.

Grayson here. Perez? Rubio?

Here.

Okay. Thanks. And just very quickly, we're gonna move to adopt the committee rules for the remaining 25-26 session. All members have provided a copy of the rules for review. So without objection, our committee rules will be adopted.

Okay. Hearing no objection, the committee rules are adopted. Please proceed. Apologies.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Coleman. I'm the general manager of Roland Water District. I'm here to testify in strong support of SB 1001. In 2019, our district implemented a comprehensive employee identification program.

Each employee carries an ID card clearly identifying them as a water utility worker and a disaster service worker under California government code Section 3101. That's clearly stated on the card. Despite this preparation, during the Eaton fire in January 2025, we experienced a critical breakdown in emergency response coordination. Roland Water District is a founding member of the Public Water Agencies Group, a regional mutual aid network of 21 water agencies. When neighboring systems were impacted by the fire, we were called upon to assist.

We deployed a team of seven trained employees to help shut off over 500 water meters at destroyed homes, an urgent task to prevent massive water loss. Our staff arrived with official ID cards and authorization documentation, yet they were denied access at a checkpoint. Ultimately, the affected agency had to escort our team through alternate means, costing valuable time during an active emergency.

Meanwhile, each damaged property was losing up to 20 gallons of water per minute across 500 homes that amounted to over 14,000,000 gallons of water per day being wasted. Water that could have supported firefighting efforts and protected lives and property.

This situation highlights a clear need for standardized, universally recognized utility identification. SB 1001 will ensure that trained utility personnel can be quickly verified and granted access when every second counts. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let do we have another lead witness? Yeah. Okay. Welcome.

You have two minutes as well.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and, committee members. My name is Adrienne Beatty. I am the chief executive officer of the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, also known as ACWA JPIA. We are a proud cosponsor of SB 1001.

ACWA JPIA provides risk management, self insurance and loss prevention services to more than 400 public water districts in the state of California. Our members collectively serve millions of Californians and operate critical infrastructure that communities rely on for drinking water, sanitation and firefighting. When disasters strike, whether it's wildfire, earthquake, or flood, water system operators and utility workers must often enter restricted areas quickly to assess damage, operate valves, system pressure, and restore service. These actions are not just about infrastructure.

They are often directly tied to public safety and emergency response, including ensuring water is available for firefighting.

However, under current law, utility workers do not have a standardized credentialing, credential that law enforcement can easily recognize at evacuation checkpoints. As a result, access often depends on ad hoc verification by individual officers who may not be familiar with local agency or utility systems. In many cases, workers arrive uniformed and in marked vehicles but still face delays while their authorization is verified. Those delays can slow restoration of critical infrastructure and complicate emergency response efforts. SB 1001 provides a practical solution.

The bill directs the Office of Emergency Services to establish a standardized identification credential for essential utility workers whose duties require access to restricted emergency areas. Importantly, the bill ensures workers are properly vetted and trained by their employers, aligning the credentialing system with federal emergency management standards, and preserves the authority of peace officers to deny access when conditions are unsafe. In short, SB 1001 improves coordination between utilities, emergency responders, and law enforcement while maintaining the safety and operational control that emergency responders need during disasters.

For these reasons, ACWA JPIA urges you respectfully urges your support for SB 1001.

Okay. Thank you very much. Other witnesses in support. Name and affiliation. Thank you so much.

Mister Chair, Oracio Gonzales on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance and the California Association of Mutual Water Companies in strong support.

Mister chair, members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Paradise Irrigation District, also a cosponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities in strong support.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in strong support.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support.

Mister chairman, Bob Reed with Reed government relations on behalf of three other cosponsors, Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company, Walnut Valley Water District, and Pico Water District.

Very good. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no other witness in support, we'll look for, for opposition. Don't have any on file, but seeing none, we'll come back to the dais.

Members, questions, comments? Mister vice chair.

Thank you, and and welcome to emergency management. Right? There you go. So this why this this committee is formed, because we're starting to find the holes in our, emergency management response and and preparedness, and then also the recovery part.

This particular issue is one that we're gonna see, probably not just with this this particular subject matter, but some other ones too because there's a lot of different essential ingredients to helping people recover after a fire, but also in the initial stages of the fire and and and and if they don't have access, then they won't be able to do their job.

And there's nobody else that's going to do it. And so we have to figure out how to accommodate that because we also have to, as as an IC, the incident commander at at fire, they're responsible for whoever goes in and along with law enforcement who's responsible for not letting people in. And and the reason they don't do that is because they've got to secure a bunch of houses where people ran away from and left unsecured.

And so when people start breaking into houses and things like that, that's the dilemma. It's not necessarily because they just don't want them there.

It's because we have to somehow secure a location, but at the same time, allow the people with the right identifiers to to come in and whether it's, you know, the electric utilities, water, gas, and also some of our insurance folks that come in during an initial fire, before the initial fire gets to an area. And and they need to get in to be able to protect the houses that the insurance company has hired them to protect as well. So, this is probably the first foray.

It's a good bill and hopefully, we'll be able to have some a process where people not only are able to get in, but we know where they are and what they're and and they are tracked by somebody who is in charge of that agency. And that person has to work with the IC so that everybody's coordinated.

That's the big challenge. And so, hopefully, this will be one one of many that we we kinda finally figure out. And in that way, we can, create, better management of these type of situations.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Others? Comments? Questions?

Yes, Senator Rubio?

Well, first of all, congratulations on being the lead at the very first meeting ever. So you you'll go down in history. But I wanna say thank you to to the author and everyone that supports the bill. I think that the last ten years have taught us quite a bit. In fact, I think I met mister Stern when the Woosley fire happened and his home was impacted.

I think it was 2017-18. And so we only see that this situation will only get worse. And, you know, in the last ten years, we've had the most deadliest and costly fires in in state history. And we have been finding these holes as, mister, Seyarto put it. So it's important that we have this opportunity to to discuss, in isolation some of these things that go hand in hand and hopefully, you know, we do better.

I know that the Eaton Fire, gave us a lot of lessons. One being that, some sections were notified, the other sections were not, and so some people didn't get out on time. So this one, in particular, is one of those missing pieces that will help strengthen our public safety in terms of, you know, but protecting victims after the fire. So thank you, mister Archuleta. And I also have added myself as a co author with your office.

So hopefully, this will go through. Thank you, everyone.

Alright. It's a motion from the vice chair. Do we have other comments or questions? No? Okay.

Allow you opportunity to close.

I'd like to thank the committee and this is the first of many, I hope, common sense laws that we will receive during the year 2026 and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. So the motion is do passed to public safety. I will call the committee assistant. Please call the roll.

Senator Stern?

Stern, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Allen? Ashby? Blakespear?

Aye.

Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Dahle?

Aye.

Dahle, aye. Grayson?

Aye.

Rubio, aye.

Grayson, aye. Perez? Rubio?

Aye.

Okay. We will leave that measure on call for the absent members, but you do have sufficient votes to get out. So congratulations. Yep. We're gonna move on to Senator Caballero, I think we see.

SB 1153 that's file item four, folks. Welcome.

Thank you very much, mister chair, for the opportunity to present SB 1153, which would provide a practical and responsible approach to wildfire preparedness in California. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments, which clarify that the bill does not reduce or remove liability for injuries or damages caused by the negligence of a public water system while performing its intended functions. That remains intact.

This amendment was drafted in response to feedback from the California Fire Chiefs Association, and I would like to thank them for their engagement on this bill. Over the last decade, as you all know, California has endured some of the most destructive and unpredictable wildfires in our history.

In addition to the destruction and devastation these wildfires have caused, they have placed an extraordinary demand on California's public water systems and their customers. Despite the demand, our public water systems have invested significant resources and time to prepare for future wildfire events through emergency preparedness actions, which vary based on the system and the region of the state and the classification, quite frankly, of wildfire danger.

Public water systems are designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water and to provide water to aid to extinguish structural fires in the communities they serve. Public water systems were not designed to function as wildfire defense or suppression systems. Despite this despite this, misunderstandings about how public water systems operated have shaped public expectations and contributed to perceptions that some of these water systems may not have performed as they were designed to during wildfire events, which is not the case.

In response to these issues, SB 1153 will one, require urban retail water suppliers in high risk areas to include wildfire specific response procedures in their emergency response plans. Two, make key findings and declarations regarding the role and limitations of public water systems in responding to wildfires. And three, establish that water supply or pressure limitations during a wildfire are not a substantial cause of wildfire damage and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of water system design.

Put simply, this bill improves local emergency planning, clarifies the role and capabilities of water systems during wildfire events, protects rate payers, and supports future investments in infrastructure by providing greater certainty to public water systems and identifies the need to plan wildfire suppression strategies that the state can invest in. With me today to testify is Dana Moore, Executive Director of the California Utilities Emergency Association and David Pedersen, General Manager of the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.

Thank you very much. We'll we'll take, our first lead witness. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Dana Moore, the executive director of the California Utilities Emergency Association or CUEA. CUEA's organizational structure allows for information sharing and we do not take formal positions on legislation. CUEA is California's designated utilities emergency coordination partner with a state seat in the state operations center to support utilities including water and wastewater during all major incidents. CEA works alongside California's utility sector and public partners to strengthen preparedness, communication and response.

We have helped critical infrastructure utilities align during large scale wildfires, supported cross sector communication during severe weather and infrastructure disruptions and contributed to the planning frameworks that guide emergencies response across California. Effective emergency coordination does not happen by chance. It is built through enduring relationships, shared frameworks and trust developed over time. So when emergencies occur, collaboration is already in motion. Urban water systems can and should be expected to plan for emergencies including wildfires.

Plans can be integrated into existing frameworks including but not limited to risk and resilience assessments, emergency response plans and capital improvement plans. Utilizing existing planning frameworks creates consistency, avoids duplicative processes and ensures that California's water systems meet a minimum preparedness standard. While urban water systems should be prepared to fight wildfire events, it is important to understand that California water systems face a 1921 challenge.

Infrastructure conceived in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, operating under twentieth century rules while continuing to confront twenty first century climate wildfire and demand pressures that routinely show these systems were never designed to be limitless firefighting machines. They're built to provide safe drinking water and support typical structural fire flows.

Designing water systems to function as wildfire suppression infrastructure would face significant financial and engineering constraints beyond the intended operational scope. Thank you.

Thank thank you very much. We'll, we'll take our next lead witness. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair Stern and members of the committee. My name is Dave Pedersen. I'm the general manager of Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. We're a water and wastewater agency in the Western part of LA County, and we serve the Santa Monica Mountains and the unincorporated areas of Malibu. My agency and water system, we've, managed through two of California's top 10 most devastating wildfires.

That is the 2018 Willsey fire and the more recent Palisades fire last year. In both of these wildfires, our water system was placed under extraordinary circumstances and performed exceptionally well. We learned a couple really important things that I wanted to share with you. Number one is that we can improve our emergency and disaster response plans so that we are better equipped for wildfire in the future. And this bill proposes doing exactly that, that we have wildfire specific procedures in these plans.

The second thing that we learned is that the liability structure post fire has evolved to a point where it's really untenable for water agencies like mine in California. And by way of example, I'll compare what we experienced in the 2018 Moseley fire. We had a single tort claim as a result of that fire. We settled that claim for a $140,000. Fast forward to the Palisades fire of last year, my agency alone, we have over 15,000 claims individual, and those total to more than a $100,000,000,000.

So what we're seeing is the landscape for liability post wildfire as it relates to water systems has really developed to a point where it requires reform. This bill also accomplishes that reform and places water systems where we think that they should be, where they're not the de facto insurer of last resort for wildfire damage. Thank you.

Alright. We'll now take general witnesses in support, so please come up. Name affiliation position on the bill.

Gonzales on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance and the California Association of Mutual Water strong support.

Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency in support.

Good afternoon. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority in support.

Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies, the sponsor of the bill, in support.

Thanks. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Good afternoon. Lily MacKay on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and West Valley Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brenda Bass on behalf of the Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robson, and Smith on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Good afternoon. Louis Bronstein, Irvine Ranch Water District in support.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

... Olivahein Municipal Water District and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District in support.

Jennifer Capitolo, California Water Association in support.

Chris Peterson with Capital Corp Group on behalf of Camrosa and Foothills Municipal Water District in support.

Cyrus Stevers, Coachella Valley Water District in support.

Alright. Thank you for that. Seeing no other than support, we'll move to opposition.

Do we have any opposition? We've none listed in the analysis, but anyone in the hearing room here? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Members, questions, comments? Senator Perez.

Well, first of all, I want to acknowledge, Senator Caballero. I I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and I think ensuring that all of our municipal water districts and our water suppliers throughout the state have a plan for what they should do during a fire and how we can best, prepare for that moment is really critical. As everyone in this room knows, I represent Altadena, which was hit very harshly by the Eaton Fire. We saw a very significant loss, you know, of structures.

And there were real challenges with the water systems that existed within Altadena.

We were absolutely not prepared for the moment that the disaster struck. And, you know, as a result, you know, water pumps failing and, being destroyed prevented water from being able to be pumped out of the ground, which ultimately limited our firefighters' capabilities to be able to put out fires and led to the loss of more homes. And it has it has been devastating, and it's caused, I think, many questions by constituents, not just in my district, but also in the Palisades as we've, had questions.

I'm sure we saw in the early days following the fire, folks raising questions about why there was, quote unquote, no waters in water in the fire hydrants and having to explain to people how our water systems work. And that it wasn't that there wasn't water in the fire hydrants.

It's just one. Pumping that much water at once is going to lead to a loss of a lot of water, which is going to lead to less water that folks are then able to use to put out fires. And when fire is burning so hot that it ends up melting the very systems that we need to pump that water out of the ground, well, then that means that we're not able to pump water.

And so we've been having lots of discussions locally about how we rebuild those systems and harden those systems for the future. And it's been a very difficult process with community, especially as and I know there's folks in here that have had conversations with my office about funding to assist with the rebuild of those mutual water companies.

At the same time, my constituents are receiving $5,000 bills in the mail to connect to the new system. This is on top of the other bills that they're receiving. And so, I appreciated some of the amendments that you included in here, stating nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or affect liability for injury or damage resulting from a negligent act or omission of an entity operating a public water system for its intended purpose and function.

Because part of my original concern with with the bill was that it made clear that water agencies are not legally responsible for fire damages caused by a loss of water pressure or supply during a wildfire, and the spread of wildfire shall not be considered an inherent risk of public water systems design, construction, or maintenance.

And that term, water systems design, construction, and maintenance, does make me a bit concerned because we know that in areas, particularly areas that I represent along the San Gabriel Foothills, that have a higher risk of fire because we're we know that our fire zones have changed.

Altadena was not in a high fire zone, but we now know that it is, that we need to introduce new systems. We have to Harden, and, it's gonna require investment. And I recognize that, and that will require dollars, you know, from us as a state as well as from local entities, but but different planning. So I I wanna make sure that this bill is both, you know, balancing. Obviously, there's real liability issues and, at the same time, really preparing for our needs for the future. We never know when disaster's going to strike.

And now seeing the situation that we're now navigating locally in my community as we're having some of these difficult discussions about hardening and the high cost of that investment. I guess, how how do you see your bill kind of balancing all of that and and making sure that we're taking to account liability but not taking away accountability at the same time?

Thank you for that question. It's it really is a balance. Absolutely right. The amendment, was, a proposal by the, fire chiefs, and I,

it was a really appropriate amendment to make it very clear that we're not talking about negligence or something that is the responsibility and the fault of the water district. What we try to do is there there's this expectation of the public that our water system is designed to fight all fire no matter what it is.

And while the water is used to fight all fire, the the system was never designed for these wildfires, and quite frankly, the the weather circumstances were so unusual during that period of two or three days, that, that the visuals that I saw made it very clear with horizontal movement of fire, that that almost no water was gonna stop this, fire from raging. It that was just incredibly hot, and the embers were blowing huge distances and setting other property on fire.

So so part of what what the bill is set up to do is, one, to say to the water agencies in these high fire risks, and there is a new map out which is much more, I think, accurate now than it was.

It gets better every time it's done. That includes a number of areas as high wildfire prone. Paradise was not in a high wildfire prone area despite the fact it was in the mountains and it was very woody. We know from that example that we needed to adjust a little bit our lens as to what was high fire, but it includes the area that you represent, which are the foothills as well.

Those areas have the water agencies have to do a report that says what's the infrastructure in place that we can utilize and what is missing and what are the protocols for a fire starting in that region and how is how are we going to prepare residents to protect themselves in in this area in case a wildfire starts.

So there's a there's a plan that has to be prepared, number one. And number two, what it starts to tell us is where is the state gonna have to make some infrastructure improvements, to create the opportunity to fight wildfires. What we know is that we just purchased a number of Black Hawk helicopters that can, scoop water out of lakes and retention base and use it to fight wildfire. Well, guess what?

If we have no retention bases or we don't have any area where we're storing water specifically for wildfire suppression, then those become pretty useless.

They're very expensive equipment and yet we ended up using the ocean because that's really the the closest place to go for water. It's wet. It helped, but it probably wasn't the best solution had we had an alternative. Should the water agencies be responsible for that? I don't think so.

I think that's a state responsibility and we are gonna need to figure out where do we put them, how are they set up, and how are we going to protect the highest wildfire zones in the state so that we have the equipment as well as the water supply necessary. And it may be that the state will work through the water agencies.

I'm not going to prejudge that, but the whole idea is to start doing the planning on a regional level, so we know what our capacities are, what are the limitations are.

And I anticipate that at some point over the next five year, this legislature will be looking at water bonds and that we'll need to have the plants, which is why I did a bill on the water plan as well to come up with nine thousand nine nine million acre feet of water because we're going to need that water in order to, drop proof the state and to also wild wildfire proof the, the immense damage that it does.

So, the the the goal is to have a planning document, to have, the water agencies, engaged actively in determining what their limitations are and and what they can do in terms of combating wildfire and then to have the state prepared to, put together a plan of its own to determine, okay, what are the pieces that are missing so that we can make sure these, wildfires don't get out of control.

I, I really appreciate that, Senator Caballero, and I think, you know, I've as we've had these discussions around what is the responsibility of our water agencies. Right? I mean, we're entering into, I think, territory we haven't been in before. You know, I don't LADWP was not prepared for this moment either. Right?

We we think about our water agencies as providing clean water to the tap for us to be able to drink, to, you know, wash, to use, not for these purposes, but but we know that this is also necessary. And so then what is the solution? And, you know, I ask these questions because at the end of the day, my constituents wanna know, you know, come in the future, should a disaster strike again, what is going to be the plan to learn from what happened previously?

And I I don't know what those answers are. I'm contending with a lot of those questions in real time.

So I appreciate the, you know, direction of your build, creating that plan, and just you answering some of these questions around navigating, you know, these really tough issues as we're facing very different climate. Thank you.

Understand. Also, the other point that is important to understand is you coming from local government, you understand the requirements and the limitations of going out to the public and asking for more money and the requirement to comply with Proposition 218. It's very difficult. But the only way that happens, assuming that infrastructure may need to be improved is if you have a plan. If you can show that you've looked at the cost, that you've looked at what the benefits are.

So, for example, in your that which you you just commented on, the water agency can go out to the community and say, look, if we do this, it may give us more resiliency because we'll have more water or we'll have a backup system and people may decide, yes, we're willing to raise the fees on water in order to be able to get this infrastructure.

But again, I feel pretty strongly that this is this wildfire infrastructure is a responsibility of everybody in the state and to put it on the backs of some resident, a small group of residents may not make the most sense. So, we just have to get ourselves prepared for whatever, whatever the local community decides it wants, that there are resources and a road map to be able to get there as well. Yeah.

Thank you. Other questions? Let me just, dove to oh, sorry. Mister Vice Chair, that's the first of many. He got me.

Thank you. Mister Chief? So, yes. This is very much needed. That's the bad news.

The good news is a lot of this work has been done in the past and people don't even know it. In the fire service, especially like in Santa Clarita and some of those areas along the, the interface areas. We know what the water system capabilities are there. Sure. They have the GPMs they need.

A lot of times with a pump issue, it's not pumping water out of the ground. It's pumping water from a low point up to a high point. And we have power safety power shut offs or public safety power shut offs, and those are not operable, and they don't have a backup generator. We're we're not gonna have that water. And and and so, you know, a lot of comments about liability, there is no system that is going to protect us from some of these fires.

The one in the Eaton fire, all you would have if you got an engine to every one of the hydrants and hooked up was a burned out bunch of burned up engines and burned up firefighters. And and because they were doing that instead of getting people out, the people would have been burned up too. More than that more than people more people would have died in those fires.

Sometimes that's the priority, is get people the heck out of the way because 100 mile an hour winds don't allow for helicopters. They don't allow for all these things.

And, you know, the after a fact after the aftermath of running around and trying to find somebody to blame. I mean, it's natural. But at the same time, when you look at these circumstances, you know, whether it was an Edison, you know, a tower that sparked off because a 100 mile an hour winds blew something into their lines, those are not very preventable.

And and so what we have to do is do a better job on the prevention side and the planning side, and that's what this bill does. It helps on the planning side to identify the weaknesses that we have, but it is if if if we think we're going to tell the public that, hey, if we do these things, we've solved the problem.

We have not. We're not ever going to solve the problem. What we will do is build systems that will work as well as possible for most of the incidents that we have. And, you know, some of the problems especially for DWP, they have old water system well, old water pipes in the ground. And you actually have to tear up everybody's streets to get those done.

They're horribly expensive. So there's some huge investments that have to be made on our behalf from the state side because the locals can't afford to do some of the work that needs to be done to get us back up to up to snuff on on some of these areas. And so I I well, I recognize this is this is a a really good bill to start focusing on some of these needs.

You know, I I get distressed when I hear, you know, let's find somebody to blame. Let's whose liability is this?

A lot of times mother nature doesn't really have a liability, and that's looking for something that mother nature created is not helpful because all that does is create, in this case, where would we rather spend a $100,000,000,000 of of money that's going out in lawsuits because you can't prove that it isn't your fault. I'd rather that be spent on actually fixing the problems.

And and so I'd like to see a whole lot more of this type of approach, which is here's the problem, here are the things that we need to do as opposed to trying to find somebody to blame and going after the fact and and and doing it that way. So with that, my comments are over. Go ahead, Nate.

Thank you, mister vice chair. I'll just, I'll make one final comment on that note to Senator Perez's point and to the vice chair's point. I think, it's all about striking a balance here. You don't wanna sap the enthusiasm or, slow down the not just the planning process, but the ability to start getting generators out there and hardening our system. Right?

So what we don't want is to create a setup where, you know, we sort of say, whatever you do, you know, you're you're off the hook, doesn't matter. And even your plan itself doesn't matter, from a from a liability perspective. I think that there are prudent, ways to utilize, one of these plans and and there are not.

And so if you, for instance, had, had a pumping system like we did above above our little community that just burned down that we've been looking at for I don't know ten years and saying we need to get back up power, we need to get back up power, we need to get back up power on his planning documents and then it doesn't happen. You know that I think that that gets into territory of like real deliberate design decisions and and and real risk.

But I think this bill sort of starts to build an architecture to to strike that balance. We we do know there's a companion measure in the assembly, that that has, some elements of a of a plan that has a little more detail in it maybe than what's in this bill. So what we wanna do is work with you going forward and the sponsor.

I think we've already talked about this both in making sure that plan itself and that planning process is as robust as possible without being a total micromanagement exercise. And then the other provision that we've got our eye on and we wanna help wrestle with you all going forward is, is in section two, at the bottom of b or sorry.

Yes. The bottom c. So 8607.3 c. The last sentence there, noncompliance with subdivision a shall not be considered a substantial cause of the damages resulting from a wildfire. What we don't want is simply by putting something in your disaster preparedness plan that's that that you're you're then alleviated from any responsibilities about what's sort of in that plan.

So that's somewhere where I don't know if we have to strike it out entirely but we are excited about working with the sponsor's author's office in sort of massaging that language just to make sure it's not read inadvertently in some way, that some other plan becomes a sort of hollow plan or even a a safe harbor inadvertently for things that really are prudent to get done. So we don't want that to be a way station and just a planning document sits on the shelf.

We need infrastructure built. And so we look forward to working with you on that. Thank you so much for accepting the amendment.

Without any further comments or questions, I'll allow you the opportunity to close.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the comments, the questions, and, I look forward to working further with you on language to see if we can strike the right balance. The whole idea is balancing the plan and as well as the responsibilities. Who's gonna bear those responsibilities? Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Appreciate that. Okay. So the the motion is to pass as amended. Oh I'm sorry I would entertain a motion. I did not get a motion.

Senator Grayson gave us a motion. Thank you Mary. The motion is to pass as amended to the Natural Resource and Water Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll]

Okay. We'll leave that call that on call for the absent members. Do we wanna go through the consent calendar at this point? Thank you, Senator Caballero. So moved from Senator Grayson. Consent calendar, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll leave that on call for the absent members. And, I think everyone here has voted. I have to go cast a vote in Judiciary Committee. So do you all want to do we take a brief recess? Does anyone wanna hold the gavel here?

Well, I have to get to transportation at some point. So our two members are left. They wanna

go Okay. Senator Perez just left. Okay. Actually, I'm gonna hand the gavel to the vice chair and hopefully, you can get him back. Okay. That's okay. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. File item one. It's SB870. Motion is con It is on consent. The current vote is five to zero.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And Senator Alright. We have another member present. So if we can go through the, missing votes, that'd be great.

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you. Welcome, Senator Allen. Nice to see you. Yeah. Alright. Let's go through the role so Senator Allen can vote.

[Roll Call]

Great. And so that should conclude our Emergency Management meeting. And it sounds like all of our bills passed, 8-0. Those are perfect bills. That's what this committee is gonna be about. Right? Thank you, guys. The meeting is adjourned.